Round Up: The Division 2 PS4 Reviews Start Relatively Strong

What I got from most reviewers is that if u like loot shooters then this game is great. If you dislike them then dont bother.

Cheat Code Central:
Fallout 76 - 74
Anthem - 60
Tom Clancy's The Division 2 - 56

I won't take this review seriously.

This game is a solid 8. Give or take depending on your love for looter shooters. Im almost at end game. Im having fun. Every mission has felt different and unique. Location feels pretty fresh. And no crashes today. Thursday though....I wanted to delete the game.

@Vegetto Shouldn't take any reviews seriously, base it on your opinion.

But in saying that, cheat code central giving fallout 76 a higher review score than this and anthem is a laugh for sure. But like I said thats just their opinion.

the reviews in this article seem pretty
divided

Sounds like a divisive game 😂

(Sorry 😂)

Absolute fantastic game, the shooting is great and your not alone in any part of this game be it normal story missions or activity in the big open world im level 18 at the moment so still a hill to climb to get to 30 where the game should really open up a little. Very enjoyable game with plenty to do, putting on apparel or weapons of same manufacturer grants bonus to for example 10% critical hit damage or another manufacturer to give for example 8% health on kill to suit different people play styles. This game will only get better too. Ubisoft have nailed this!

@Vegetto
Good spot, sounds like a very unreliable website.

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi so what part would you be all over out of interest?

CCC just mad The Division 2 doesn't have cheats.

Cosmetic clothing is rare to find in this one so finding a new cap or new pair of kecks is like finding a super rare epic weapon for me.
I'm really enjoying the game and that's all that matters.

Picked up the game today, never played the first game but I'm really enjoying it myself.

I've got this and anthem and at the moment this is holding my gaming time only level 5 but enjoying it so far
.

It's kind of sad that people feel the need to soapbox their favorite games by dumping on others (just check some of the 0-score Meta critic reviews from people who clearly haven't played the game). I hope Anthem eventually becomes great, and Destiny 2 was a lot of fun. But right now Division 2 is an absolute corker of a game. That Cheat Code Central reviewer seems like he has an axe to grind, and was determined to dislike the game from the start.
Short review: Absolutely terrible main story, great "small" stories (missions etc), very stable for an MMO, incredible design, and literally some of the most fun I've had in a game for years. 9/10 from me.

I don’t consider CCC a legit review source

I’m really enjoying it.the missions have all been great so far I’m currently lvl 21.cant wait to get to get to the end game where it will really open up

5.6 out of 10! Idiotic scoring system

I don't care that CCC expressed their own opinion and came to their own score for this game. I do care though that they have the freedom to express their own opinion - whether I (or others) agree with it or not.

The other two scores aren't in total agreement either and the 'avg' score is still 7.2 which, judging by the 'early' impressions from other critics, likely to increase.

If you enjoy it, great. No doubt EVERYONE who plays the game will formulate their own impression and 'score'. Maybe there will be some that agree with CCC, whilst others may think that Gamersky or even Destructoid reviews maybe missing something that you saw/felt that makes you score it higher in your own mind.

One of the greatest things is being able to make up your own mind, draw up your own conclusions and the freedom to express and share those.

I don't care if people agree with me and my opinions or not. I do care though that people are free to express their opinions and respect that others can have and probably will have different opinions. Some may agree too of course but as long as people are free to express themselves and can be respected regardless of whether you agree or not. Like I said, I don't care if people agree with my opinions, but I do care if people show respect for others regardless of whether they agree or not. If you don't agree with me for example, you will still want me to respect you and the fact you have a different opinion. Respect though is a two way thing...

Having said that, I don't know whether I agree with CCC's review or not, I don't know if I agree with Gamersky or Destructoid either and I (and others) won't know until we have played the game to the same point as these. Is the game complete right now is it one of those type of games that drip feeds content over a period of time like other live service games? If it is a 'drip' feed content type game, then you can only review the 'initial' content - and not the complete game yet anyway...

There's always one or two sites that have their reviewers draw straws to see who gets to write an unfavorable review on a popular game just to get clicks, my favorite so far being the Horizon Zero Dawn review from USgamer. The cheat code central guy didn't even really make an attempt to hide this

@Vegetto Ok you got me there. 😁
So we only have 2 reviews but Metal Gear Survive has a 8 here. 😜

@get2sammyb sorry slightly off topic but when is the Sekiro review due next week?

@BAMozzy Nonsense if a company does release the base game with enough content then it needs to be heard.

Personally I haven’t experienced any of the PS4 crashes that gamersky mentions. Enjoying it so far.

@Flaming_Kaiser Did you actually bother reading my post at all or just trying to be argumentative??

I never said that reviewers should or shouldn't review a 'base' game at launch regardless of whether the initial content is substantial or not. All I said is that reviewers cannot review a 'complete' game at launch because they haven't got the complete game yet and so have to review what content they have at this stage. If devs/publishers decide to drip feed content over a period of time, as live service games tend to do, then they have to suffer the consequences of only having 'part' of the whole reviewed at launch because the reviewers cannot reveal the game as whole - not unless they are prepared to wait a year or two which is totally unrealistic.

Games like the Division, Destiny, Anthem etc could be 'excellent' by the time the whole game is completed but have to suffer only a 'part' of the game being reviewed. Some reviewers may well be more optimistic because of the initial content and the way it plays/looks whilst others may feel more pessimistic because the initial content was 'repetitive' and wasn't looking forward to more of the same.

Either way, you are only getting some persons opinion of the game and the initial content, regardless. They cannot review the game as a whole because they haven't got the game as a whole - not yet. That is not a criticism of reviewers, of developers, of publishers or of the situation - its just a statement of fact. Not one review will be a review of the whole 'live service' game, just a review of the initial content - for better or worse - because no reviewer has the whole content.

I don't know if that is the case with the Division 2, whether it is a complete package with paid for DLC expansions or if its more of Live Service game with additional content dropping over time so it builds into a complete game.This is why I asked if it was a complete game or live service, if it is the whole game being reviewed or just the opening/initial drop of content . If its a 'live service' type game with just the initial content, that may go some way to explaining CCC's low score because they didn't have the 'complete' game yet.

It's the same with Hitman that only had a small part of the game at launch with further missions coming later. Reviewers score isn't representing the game as whole, just the mission(s) that they were able to review at that time. Not a criticism, but a statement of fact. Maybe the reviewers may change their scores after all the content had dropped (if they could or would is a different matter) but the review scores only represented the score of the content they had access to, not the game as a whole. As long as people understand that, then its fine. Its no different to low scoring games being much better for players months after release because the Devs have patched and fixed things that brought the reviewers scoring down.

The whole point of a review is that it is just a persons opinion of the product they had at that point in time and not necessarily the score or opinion they may have 6months on for example. You cannot hold a reviewer to a score of something they had of something that has radically changed over time - for better or worse. Its just representative of their opinion of the product at that time and not what it could be with patches, with the rest of the game etc.

@Flaming_Kaiser you should have known by now not to mess with @BAMozzy 's Walls of Textaga one-shot finishing move, drains 1000HP 😂😂😂

This why I don't think reviews, games or otherwise, should have scores. People see a number and jump all over it. People here are jumping all over that low review number, not which parts of the review they disagree with.

I never rely on scores, I always read them to see if their complaints or praise are things I can relate to. For example, the dark souls games are way too hard for me. But if the next game in series was massively easy it would get low scores, but it would be more fun for me. So score mean nothing without the reasons behind it.

So far its tonnes better than the first version, even after its updates..

Gunplay feels more refined, and despite a few bullet sponge moments, the enemies do generally react to being hit this time around, while actually having some tactical ability in their AI routines... Which is a vast improvement.

The world is more compelling and even the dark zone (which i hated) has been adapted to try and be more accessable for players of all strengths.

A good start to the life of this one, with a bit more depth added to what is a simple premise..

I can see why some have not wanted to take a punt on this, after previous issues, with scepticism from me too..

But so far, so good

Just hope Ubisoft dont ubisoft it up...

Been playing with friends and we're having a great time. I have 17 hours playtime & barely scratched the surface (according to the map anyway). Gotta love that flame thrower turret!!

@TheArt I almost never do read them its to much text. But if i see something i really dont agree on ill bite. 😁

@BAMozzy Shall we dripfeed the score? This is what content we have now and thats what they rate easy. If your dripfeed is slow with not enough content then you should be punished for it. Anthem is a great way to show whats the problem is with some liveservice games.

I love the way that the enemies react and say things as to what you do, it makes it so much more immersive. I haven't heard anybody scream for poor Alex. The physics and animations are much improved, too.

@Flaming_Kaiser Again, I haven't disagreed. I have only stated a fact that if the Reviewer has only been given partial content, they can only review that and not the game as a whole. The Review system is not set up in any other way - not that I am being critical of that - just stating a fact. Its clear you don't read anything properly!

The reviewer can only review what content they have and not the game as a whole. If they 'feel' that what they have is 'incomplete' then they have the option to score it 'lower' and thus 'punish' the developer/publisher because SO many people are incapable of buying a game and actually drawing up their own conclusions. These people will forever bring up a review score or metacritic score as 'proof' a game is/was awful regardless of if they actually bothered to play it themselves. The score will forever be a metaphoric 'noose', maybe even will cause the studio to be 'hung' and closed because people will not buy a game scored under 8/10.

You would think that the Division and the development team will not end up in this situation but Bioware could with their parent company. EA could well kill off Bioware because of first Mass Effect and now Anthem - even though the game is supposed to grow and develop into something 'bigger'.

Score can be critical - Obsidian missed out on a large 'bonus' for Fallout: New Vegas because of 1pt on Metacritic having scored 84.

Score itself can be 'punishment' - either lead to massive loss in potential sales, loss of bonus pay even loss of jobs and closure of studio's. Whether a development team actually fixes the games, adds more content etc over time, that review score remains locked. Again - not being critical, just stating a fact. Its the same for 'static' content games as well as games designed to build up to complete game over time. Driveclub for example - a 'static' or Complete game at launch was a 'mess' and scored as such because that was the game as it was. Regardless of the fixes etc, the game will forever have that 'score' attached to it - even if a few weeks/months etc, the game is fixed and now one of the 'best' racers on PS4. Games as a live service can only be reviewed as the 'game' it is/was at or even prior to launch and not as the complete package it could turn into. That is the way the system is. Developers and Publishers must know that to get a 'decent' review score, something that will stick with the game for its entire existence regardless, they have to release a 'complete' and a bug free game at, or just before launch. Anything less and that will impact on their score. Games as a live service also need to release a sizeable chunk of their game, a sizeable story to introduce you to the world and lore etc. It can be difficult if not impossible to review the game as a 'live' service, review the end-game and week to week content - things that may only go live after release.

That's the chance they seem willing to take though, the chance that reviews could be on the lower side because the game is not complete, not up and running 'live' until 'launch' day, not running perfectly yet - anything that isn't 'perfect' and/or 'complete'. They are punished for that in terms of review scores and the way people react to 'scores', the fact they won't buy anything less than a 8.5 or 9 at or close to launch and anything less than a 7.5 is utter garbage and must not be touched at all. Even if reviewers could or would review the game after a week, a month, etc and would change their score based on the game at that point in time after patches, after seeing what direction the game is growing into as a live service, the damage is done by the initial impressions, their opinion based on that moment in time. Again NOT criticising just stating a fact.

Reviewers have their job to do as well, have their audience to keep hold of so they have to get their reviews out as soon as they are able to do so. They have to score it on the amount of content and state of the game at that particular point in time - regardless of whether it gets patched, grows in content etc over time after the review. I know that they have pressure too and can have their opinions challenged and their name dragged through the mud - how dare anyone give a 3D Mario/Zelda game anything less than a 10 for example, how dare anyone have a 'differing' opinion to another reviewer...

I am not criticising the system, the scoring, the reviewers etc just stating facts. Reviewers have to review the game they are given, not necessarily the game as whole, as a fixed and fully playable title etc. Their opinions can make or break games, even cause closures of studio's too. They can also come under fire for having an opinion that differs from someone else - as we see here with the CCC review and have seen numerous times in the past. I doubt many PushSquare reviewers haven't been criticised for scoring a game that someone else feels differently about. That's just the way things are - rightly or wrongly.

@BAMozzy I read the first comment. But for the love of God cut out 90% text and make a normal response. Nobody in their right mind will read such a insane amount of text.